[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1271183463.16881.545.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:31:03 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au>,
Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>,
David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
qemu-devel <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tun: orphan an skb on tx
Le mardi 13 avril 2010 à 20:39 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin a écrit :
> > When a socket with inflight tx packets is closed, we dont block the
> > close, we only delay the socket freeing once all packets were delivered
> > and freed.
> >
>
> Which is wrong, since this is under userspace control, so you get
> unkillable processes.
>
We do not get unkillable processes, at least with sockets I was thinking
about (TCP/UDP ones).
Maybe tun sockets can behave the same ?
Herbert Acked your patch, so I guess its OK, but I think it can be
dangerous.
Anyway my feeling is that we try to add various mechanisms to keep a
hostile user flooding another one.
For example, UDP got memory accounting quite recently, and we added
socket backlog limits very recently. It was considered not needed few
years ago.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists